In article , stmx3 wrote:

Interesting position that NASA can afford to lose crews. I understand
the economics behind that statement, but I see it to be untenable in
the face of public opinion.

I ditto your last sentiment. The only thing keeping NASA going, AFAIK,
is the will of the public (and, of course, NASA being a neat source of
congressional pork). NASA can *always* build another shuttle, despite
the difficulties, but they will *never* find another crew like the one
on STS-107.

Whilst I in no way wish to belittle the deaths of the 107 crew...
in exactly what way, from NASA's point of view, were they unique?

NASA wants a competent shuttle crew. They have, to the best of my
recollection, some 200-odd people - roughly twenty-five to thirty
possible crews, depending on whether or not you count those who are
unavailable for some reason. Those people got their places through a
highly competitive process that weeded out ten times as many, most of
whom were perfectly capable of doing a job, and (SFAIAA) all of whom are
still willing to, to paraphrase Al Shepard, get on top and light the
candle.

The STS-107 crew did not, to the best of my knowledge, contain
individuals whose skills are not replicated elsewhere in the astronaut
corps (unless you count "being Israeli").

Yes, deaths are a tragedy; any death diminishes us all, to misquote
someone whose name I really should remember. But whilst people, as
individuals, are irreplaceable... people, as employees, aren't. If one
of my (hypothetical, damn this job market) colleagues dies, then I will
mourn them; I won't claim that we can't hire another cook.

An individual is irreplaceable; it does not mean someone else cannot do
the job they did. And NASA has a large pool of trained, competent and
willing replacements. They'll find another crew like the one on 107. I
think you've slightly misread the point you were agreeing with...

--
-Andrew Gray